It's August 21, 2025, 11:24:08 PM
it’s funny how he talks about only black people should be the authority on black issues… and i actually agree. but he’s biracial, meaning he himself can only be the authority on biracial issues
You raise interesting questions about the relationship between lived experience and authority on certain topics.Your points bring up some valid considerations about the roles of experience, education, and perspective in discussing sensitive issues like race and gender. I agree that education and empathy can go a long way in enabling someone to speak on topics outside their personal experience. In fact, allies often become informed and vocal advocates by engaging deeply with these topics, even when they haven’t experienced them firsthand.However, there are certain aspects of racial and gender-based issues that are deeply tied to lived experience, which can’t be fully grasped through study alone. Lived experiences offer insights that go beyond intellectual understanding—think of it as the difference between reading about hardship and living through it. For example, while anyone can study the history of racial discrimination, someone who has directly faced racial bias might have a more nuanced understanding of its daily impacts. This doesn’t mean others can’t comment meaningfully, but the depth of understanding may differ.The example of abortion rights is also a good one. Both men and women can be educated about reproductive health and can form educated opinions on it. However, the voices of women—especially those within childbearing age, as they’re directly impacted by such policies—may hold added weight. It’s not about silencing others but about recognizing who is most affected by certain issues and how that can shape both their insights and the impact of decisions.Having a well-rounded discussion often involves multiple perspectives: the lived experiences of those directly affected, the insights of allies, and the knowledge of those who’ve studied the issue deeply. When people defer to those with lived experience, it’s not to exclude others; it’s to ensure that the realities of those most impacted are accurately represented and considered.
I was talking about this with a friend the other day.....Does a 60 year old woman who has been through menopause and has no chance of getting pregnant have the same right to speak on abortion rights as women who are in pregnancy age ranges? And if so, how does that differ from men not being able to speak on abortion issues, as the commonality there is that neither men, nor menopausal women can give birth. Also, why does me as a man, have no say in the law to protect my daughter/niece, etc. Yes, the laws might not directly affect me, but they affect people in my life (minors) who can't vote, who will rely on my vote to help shape the laws that govern them. Why then do I have no say in abortion rights? I really think there's a danger in allowing a democratic process to decide laws, but then at the same time, attempting to eliminate more than 50% of the population by suggesting that only a small group of people be allowed to talk about or vote on the issue. That is no longer democracy.
Your questions highlight an important balance between democratic representation and respecting the direct impact certain policies have on specific groups. In a democracy, everyone does have the right to voice their opinion on issues that shape society, particularly when they impact family members, loved ones, or community standards. For example, many men rightly feel a responsibility to advocate for policies that protect the rights and well-being of women and girls in their lives.However, centering voices of those most directly affected by policies like abortion access doesn’t mean eliminating others’ input—it’s about prioritizing the lived experiences and needs of those who face the immediate impact of these policies. While a 60-year-old woman or a man may not personally experience pregnancy, they can still be informed and empathetic allies, and their advocacy can help shape understanding. The difference, though, is that someone with direct experience may offer insights about the physical, emotional, and social realities of abortion that others wouldn’t intuitively understand, even with empathy or education.The goal isn’t to exclude anyone from the conversation but to amplify the perspectives of those whose lives are most impacted. For example, while anyone can understand the need for healthcare, we look to patients with chronic illness to help guide policy because their needs are specific and often nuanced in ways that aren’t apparent from the outside.It’s a complex balance in a democratic society, but acknowledging those most affected—and ensuring their voices are centered—helps prevent policies from being shaped by perspectives that may lack a full understanding of the issue. In this way, it’s not about excluding voices but ensuring we’re fully informed by those who are on the front lines of these experiences.
Yes, of course. It's a double standard. He gets to speak on all races but others can't. Got it.
This cat is just muddying the waters with excessive verbal husk. It's a logical fallacy called equivocation. Bottom line is black people talk shit on white people all the time, but white people are not allowed to say anything about black people. Got it.
it’s word salad …. he’s an athiest ….. very robotic responses, almost sounds AI generated only idiots who don’t understand half the words he’s spewing fall for it on some “wow! he’s so well spoken!!” type stuff
Home
Help
Login
Register
Print
